Culture Minister Edwin Poots has said he is opposed to the introduction of an
Irish Language Act.

He said this was despite the majority of respondents to the department's
consultation favouring legislation.

Mr Poots told the NI Assembly that "compelling costs" were among the reasons he
was against the act.

Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff, culture, arts and leisure committee chairman, said
the move was "a mistake".

"He is missing an opportunity here, a major opportunity to prove that he is
capable and willing of being minister for all of the people," he said.

Costs

Mr Poots said the Northern Ireland Civil Service had already spent just over
£20m delivering Irish language projects and translations in the past year.

He said this figure excluded the expenditure of local councils and the Northern
Ireland Court Service.

"The enhancement and protection of the development of the Irish language is an
important matter for Northern Ireland, as is the enhancement and protection of
the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture," he said.

"However, I remain unpersuaded that there is a compelling case for progressing
legislation, at this time.

"There is, in my view, insufficient community consensus; potentially significant
costs; and a real possibility that legislation could undermine good relations
and in so doing prove counter productive to those wishing to see the language
developed in a non-politicised and inclusive manner."

Ulster Unionist assembly member David McNarry welcomed the decision.

"Respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity would
have been fundamentally undermined by the proposed act," he said.

"The Irish Language Act would further politicise Irish, place an undue and
costly emphasis upon it and allow it to be used as a cultural weapon in an
unarmed struggle."

The SDLP's Dominic Bradley said Mr Poots' decision was "a cause for regret".

"He has abdicated his duty to implement the promises made by the two governments
in respect of the Irish language in the Saint Andrew's Agreement and in the Good
Friday Agreement," he said.

"Whether Mr Poots likes it or not, the two governments have made binding
promises with regard to the Irish language."

The Irish Language Act was promised to Sinn Fein by the then Prime Minister Tony
Blair at the St Andrew's talks in 2006.

However, the act is now the responsibility of the Executive, and requires
cross-community consensus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7046117.stm

Poots:  Póg Mo Thoin!!!

Ray

On 16 Oct, 21:59, "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
 wrote:
> Culture Minister Edwin Poots has said he is opposed to the introduction of an
> Irish Language Act.
>
> He said this was despite the majority of respondents to the department's
> consultation favouring legislation.
>
> Mr Poots told the NI Assembly that "compelling costs" were among the reasons he
> was against the act.
>
> Sinn Fein's Barry McElduff, culture, arts and leisure committee chairman, said
> the move was "a mistake".
>
> "He is missing an opportunity here, a major opportunity to prove that he is
> capable and willing of being minister for all of the people," he said.
>
> Costs
>
> Mr Poots said the Northern Ireland Civil Service had already spent just over
> £20m delivering Irish language projects and translations in the past year.
>
> He said this figure excluded the expenditure of local councils and the Northern
> Ireland Court Service.
>
> "The enhancement and protection of the development of the Irish language is an
> important matter for Northern Ireland, as is the enhancement and protection of
> the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture," he said.
>
> "However, I remain unpersuaded that there is a compelling case for progressing
> legislation, at this time.
>
> "There is, in my view, insufficient community consensus; potentially significant
> costs; and a real possibility that legislation could undermine good relations
> and in so doing prove counter productive to those wishing to see the language
> developed in a non-politicised and inclusive manner."
>
> Ulster Unionist assembly member David McNarry welcomed the decision.
>
> "Respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity would
> have been fundamentally undermined by the proposed act," he said.
>
> "The Irish Language Act would further politicise Irish, place an undue and
> costly emphasis upon it and allow it to be used as a cultural weapon in an
> unarmed struggle."
>
> The SDLP's Dominic Bradley said Mr Poots' decision was "a cause for regret".
>
> "He has abdicated his duty to implement the promises made by the two governments
> in respect of the Irish language in the Saint Andrew's Agreement and in the Good
> Friday Agreement," he said.
>
> "Whether Mr Poots likes it or not, the two governments have made binding
> promises with regard to the Irish language."
>
> The Irish Language Act was promised to Sinn Fein by the then Prime Minister Tony
> Blair at the St Andrew's talks in 2006.
>
> However, the act is now the responsibility of the Executive, and requires
> cross-community consensus.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7046117.stm
>
> Poots:  Póg Mo Thoin!!!
>
> Ray

Yeah its not unexpected, this is typical DUP though I wonder now if Mr
POOTs is going to ban ALL marches on public roads after all the costs
in cleanup and policing for over 3000 marches I would guess costs more
than an Irish language act. If unionists want nationalists to respect
their culture than they too have to start respecting the wishes and
culture of nationalists. Its about time we dropped the d'hont system
west of the ban and put up Irish language signs etc anyway at council
level.

freeireland wrote:

> 
> 
> Yeah its not unexpected, this is typical DUP though I wonder now if Mr
> POOTs is going to ban ALL marches on public roads after all the costs
> in cleanup and policing for over 3000 marches I would guess costs more
> than an Irish language act. If unionists want nationalists to respect
> their culture than they too have to start respecting the wishes and
> culture of nationalists. Its about time we dropped the d'hont system
> west of the ban and put up Irish language signs etc anyway at council
> level.
> 


Since when have Sinn Fein respected anybody's culture (even their own)?

They don't,

they chisel away at scab picking exercises. SF are a pseudo-radical 
organization with little or no grasp of give & take cohabitation.

The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free 
organization and they tried to become THE gay party!

They are scab-pickers.

Grosspecka

On 17 Oct, 08:07, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> > Yeah its not unexpected, this is typical DUP though I wonder now if Mr
> > POOTs is going to ban ALL marches on public roads after all the costs
> > in cleanup and policing for over 3000 marches I would guess costs more
> > than an Irish language act. If unionists want nationalists to respect
> > their culture than they too have to start respecting the wishes and
> > culture of nationalists. Its about time we dropped the d'hont system
> > west of the ban and put up Irish language signs etc anyway at council
> > level.
>
> Since when have Sinn Fein respected anybody's culture (even their own)?

When has anyone mentioned Sinn Fein?

>
> They don't,
>
> they chisel away at scab picking exercises. SF are a pseudo-radical
> organization with little or no grasp of give & take cohabitation.

Really, you are British aren't you!  they are keen on the take not so
fond of the giving either though. Irish language is important to many
Irish nationalists so why not give them the right to use their native
language!

>
> The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
> organization and they tried to become THE gay party!

Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
do you?

>
> They are scab-pickers.

What politican isn't? So why single out Sinn Fein, after all at least
they didn't pick scabs in other peoples countries!

>
> Grosspecka

freeireland wrote:

> 
>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
> 
> 
> Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
> do you?


In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last 
famously obvious shot at it.


> 
> 
>>They are scab-pickers.
> 
> 
> What politican isn't? So why single out Sinn Fein, after all at least
> they didn't pick scabs in other peoples countries!

Was it coffee picking in Colombia?

Hundreds of ETA posters & murals all over the place etc.

IRA squads in Europe?

Myopia is a minus.

Grosspeckaa

freeireland wrote:

[...]
> Irish nationalists so why not give them the right to use their native
> language!
[...]

Fine. You pay for it.

http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/minister_s_statement.pdf

I'll help out with the big words if you like.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Police could not have prevented Greysteel
http://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail&year=2007

On 17 Oct, 11:47, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> [...]> Irish nationalists so why not give them the right to use their native
> > language!
>
> [...]
>
> Fine. You pay for it.
>
> http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/minister_s_statement.pdf
>
> I'll help out with the big words if you like.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Police could not have prevented Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail&y...

Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
whatever else I don't want!

On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> >>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
> >>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>
> > Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
> > do you?
>
> In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
> famously obvious shot at it.
>

So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?

>
>
> >>They are scab-pickers.
>
> > What politican isn't? So why single out Sinn Fein, after all at least
> > they didn't pick scabs in other peoples countries!
>
> Was it coffee picking in Colombia?

You tell me what they where doing with evidence please?

>
> Hundreds of ETA posters & murals all over the place etc.

Posters n Belfast you mean? What Sinn Fein member put them up or
painted them.

>
> IRA squads in Europe?

IRA really, considering the IRA are illegal and Sinn Fein are not in
Britian how are you concluding they are the same thing?

>
> Myopia is a minus.

You need a bit of eye laser surgery yourself!
>
> Grosspeckaa

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>
>>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>>>do you?
>>
>>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
>>famously obvious shot at it.
>>
> 
> 
> So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?


Let me think, yes it does. I grew up surrounded by IRA people, none of 
them were gay, I don't know a single member of SF who is gay.

If you want the history of the homosexual scene in Belfast over the last 
six decades I will be happy to post it here.

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>
>>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>>>do you?
>>
>>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
>>famously obvious shot at it.
>>
> 
> 
> So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?
> 
> 
>>
>>>>They are scab-pickers.
>>
>>>What politican isn't? So why single out Sinn Fein, after all at least
>>>they didn't pick scabs in other peoples countries!
>>
>>Was it coffee picking in Colombia?
> 
> 
> You tell me what they where doing with evidence please?


Eco-Tourism it is then.


> 
> 
>>Hundreds of ETA posters & murals all over the place etc.
> 
> 
> Posters n Belfast you mean? What Sinn Fein member put them up or
> painted them.

Maybe ETA put them up.

;O))

Album Number: 48
Mural Number: 1683
Location: Divis Street, Falls, Belfast
Type: Nationalist / Republican
Year: December 2002
Status: Still exists at location
Description: "Borrokuruko dei eginuz irrintzi but dubil. Tiochfaidh ár 
lá. ETA bietan jarrai". ETA mural showing a masked ETA volunteer and the 
ETA symbol against a swirling blue background. See No.1637 Album 47.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no1683.htm#photo

On 17 Oct, 13:48, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
> >>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>
> >>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
> >>>do you?
>
> >>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
> >>famously obvious shot at it.
>
> > So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?
>
> Let me think, yes it does. I grew up surrounded by IRA people, none of
> them were gay, I don't know a single member of SF who is gay.
>

This conversation might make more sense if you replaced the term 'gay'
with the term 'openly gay'. That is the real measure of acceptance.

The incidence of being gay will be pretty much be even through various
populations. The ability to live without prejudice when that is openly
stated is the  variable.

> If you want the history of the homosexual scene in Belfast over the last
> six decades I will be happy to post it here.

mothed out wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 13:48, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>
>>>>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>>>>>do you?
>>
>>>>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
>>>>famously obvious shot at it.
>>
>>>So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?
>>
>>Let me think, yes it does. I grew up surrounded by IRA people, none of
>>them were gay, I don't know a single member of SF who is gay.
>>
> 
> 
> This conversation might make more sense if you replaced the term 'gay'
> with the term 'openly gay'. That is the real measure of acceptance.


True and precisely my point.


> 
> The incidence of being gay will be pretty much be even through various
> populations. The ability to live without prejudice when that is openly
> stated is the  variable.

Living without prejudice is not possible within the context of the 
homosexual demographic itself.

There are radicals, conservatives and liberals within Queerdom.

For example.

The PIE/GLF conflict was far more demonic in Great Britain than the 
NAMBLA exclusion issue in the USA.

mothed out wrote:
...
> The incidence of being gay will be pretty much be even through various
> populations. The ability to live without prejudice when that is openly
> stated is the  variable.

Populations, possibly, though there will be people who would be potentially
gay but who've decided to stay straight, willingly or otherwise. However,
within groups within populations I think it's highly unlikely that all
occupations have the same incidence. Is it really plausible that airline
stewards, ballet stars and hairdressers would have the same percentage as
footballers, miners or policemen.


-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

On 17 Oct, 14:15, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
> >>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>
> >>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
> >>>do you?
>
> >>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
> >>famously obvious shot at it.
>
> > So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?

Bit of a contridition here don't you think?

It was Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance who where serious about gay rights
enough to push through the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein are also pushing civil
partnership for same sex couples in the republic. It was in there last
manifesto.

>
> >>>>They are scab-pickers.
>
> >>>What politican isn't? So why single out Sinn Fein, after all at least
> >>>they didn't pick scabs in other peoples countries!
>
> >>Was it coffee picking in Colombia?
>
> > You tell me what they where doing with evidence please?
>
> Eco-Tourism it is then.
>
>
>
> >>Hundreds of ETA posters & murals all over the place etc.
>
> > Posters n Belfast you mean? What Sinn Fein member put them up or
> > painted them.
>
> Maybe ETA put them up.

Unlikely though clearly you don't know. However I do know that none of
the murals  or slogans in Derry where painted by Sinn Fein or at Sinn
Feins behest.

>
> ;O))
>
> Album Number: 48
> Mural Number: 1683
> Location: Divis Street, Falls, Belfast
> Type: Nationalist / Republican
> Year: December 2002
> Status: Still exists at location
> Description: "Borrokuruko dei eginuz irrintzi but dubil. Tiochfaidh ár
> lá. ETA bietan jarrai". ETA mural showing a masked ETA volunteer and the
> ETA symbol against a swirling blue background. See No.1637 Album 47.
>
> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no1683.htm#photo

So can you tell me which one of these was created by Sinn Fein?

 Its clear many republicans would voice support for many groups around
the world, so what thats a far cry than say invading a country for
oil, diamonds, gold etc. killing thousands of people on the way. Its
imperialists who leave the scabs that you claim Sinn Fein pick at .

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 14:15, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Oct, 11:45, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>
>>>>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>>>>>do you?
>>
>>>>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last
>>>>famously obvious shot at it.
>>
>>>So how does this make Sinn Fein gay free as you claimed?
> 
> 
> Bit of a contridition here don't you think?
> 
> It was Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance who where serious about gay rights
> enough to push through the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
> Regulations in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein are also pushing civil
> partnership for same sex couples in the republic. It was in there last
> manifesto.


SF pushed through nothing.

That (a) was Westminster, a draft of that instrument (Statutory 
Instrument 2007 No. 1263) was laid before Parliament and approved by a 
resolution of each House of Parliament.

What SF, SDLP or the Alliance Party thought about it was neither here 
nor there. As for (b) SF do not have much clout in the RoI.

The NIA condemnation vote ( you allude to) was evenly split, Caitriona 
Ruane did her usual radical libertarian performance.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6169873.stm


> 
> 
>>>>>>They are scab-pickers.
>>
>>>>>What politican isn't? So why single out Sinn Fein, after all at least
>>>>>they didn't pick scabs in other peoples countries!
>>
>>>>Was it coffee picking in Colombia?
>>
>>>You tell me what they where doing with evidence please?
>>
>>Eco-Tourism it is then.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Hundreds of ETA posters & murals all over the place etc.
>>
>>>Posters n Belfast you mean? What Sinn Fein member put them up or
>>>painted them.
>>
>>Maybe ETA put them up.
> 
> 
> Unlikely though clearly you don't know. However I do know that none of
> the murals  or slogans in Derry where painted by Sinn Fein or at Sinn
> Feins behest.


If you say so. I reckon they just paint themselves.



> 
> 
>>;O))
>>
>>Album Number: 48
>>Mural Number: 1683
>>Location: Divis Street, Falls, Belfast
>>Type: Nationalist / Republican
>>Year: December 2002
>>Status: Still exists at location
>>Description: "Borrokuruko dei eginuz irrintzi but dubil. Tiochfaidh ár
>>lá. ETA bietan jarrai". ETA mural showing a masked ETA volunteer and the
>>ETA symbol against a swirling blue background. See No.1637 Album 47.
>>
>>http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no1683.htm#photo
> 
> 
> So can you tell me which one of these was created by Sinn Fein?


I saw Gerry and Martin do that one personally.

Martin held the bucket & Gerry Adams had the brush.

I said "hi" to Martin as I passed.

Gerry asked me if I could run up to the shops for him to get him a Fry's 
Cream. I said "nae bother".


When I got back I asked '"how much the dagoes paying yer for dat" and 
Gerry said "a tenner" and winked,

I reckon he had his hand into Martin's half of the pesos.

Politics, back-stabbing biz.

Ain't it?

Grosspeckaa

Scríobh "Westprog" :
>mothed out wrote:
>...
>> The incidence of being gay will be pretty much be even through various
>> populations. The ability to live without prejudice when that is openly
>> stated is the  variable.
>
>Populations, possibly, though there will be people who would be potentially
>gay but who've decided to stay straight, willingly or otherwise. However,
>within groups within populations I think it's highly unlikely that all
>occupations have the same incidence. Is it really plausible that airline
>stewards, ballet stars and hairdressers would have the same percentage as
>footballers, miners or policemen.

How about bikers, cops, indian chiefs and construction workers?

-- 
'Donegal:  Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

"Grosspeckaa"  wrote in message 
news:5JlRi.14822$ah6.4102@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> freeireland wrote:
>
>>
>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>
>>
>> Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>> do you?
>
>
> In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last 
> famously obvious shot at it.
>
> Grosspeckaa


Roger Casement was a member of Sinn Fein?
Your source please. I do wish to learn.

Tuppence wrote:
> "Grosspeckaa"  wrote in message 
> news:5JlRi.14822$ah6.4102@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>>
>>>
>>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>>>do you?
>>
>>
>>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last 
>>famously obvious shot at it.
>>
>>Grosspeckaa
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Casement was a member of Sinn Fein?
> Your source please. I do wish to learn. 
> 
> 


The New York Times has recently published serious allegations against 
Sir Roger Casement, I need time to study the documents.

By recently, I mean January 30, 1921, I am a bit behind in my reading. 
The Sinn Fein 'White Book' makes disturbing reading.

Tuppence wrote:
> "Grosspeckaa"  wrote in message 
> news:5JlRi.14822$ah6.4102@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The gay issue I brought up is a good point, they are a gay free
>>>>organization and they tried to become THE gay party!
>>>
>>>
>>>Really and you know the sexual orientation of every Sinn Fein member
>>>do you?
>>
>>
>>In Belfast? I reckon I can have a good try.  Casement was the last 
>>famously obvious shot at it.
>>
>>Grosspeckaa
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Casement was a member of Sinn Fein?
> Your source please. I do wish to learn. 
> 
> 




"If true religion rests on love, it is equally true that loyalty rests 
on love. The law that I am charged under has no parentage in love, and 
claims the allegiance of today on the ignorance and blindness of the past.

I am being tried, in truth, not by my peers of the live present, but by 
the fears of the dead past; not by the civilization of the twentieth 
century, but by the brutality of the fourteenth; not even by a statute 
framed in the language of the land that tries me, but emitted in the 
language of an enemy land—so antiquated is the law that must be sought 
today to slay an Irishman, whose offence is that he puts Ireland first.

Loyalty is a sentiment, not a law. It rests on love, not on restraint. 
The government of Ireland by England rests on restraint, and not on law; 
and since it demands no love, it can evoke no loyalty..."

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:41:13 +0100, "Westprog" 
wrote:

>mothed out wrote:
>...
>> The incidence of being gay will be pretty much be even through various
>> populations. The ability to live without prejudice when that is openly
>> stated is the  variable.
>
>Populations, possibly, though there will be people who would be potentially
>gay but who've decided to stay straight, willingly or otherwise. However,
>within groups within populations I think it's highly unlikely that all
>occupations have the same incidence. Is it really plausible that airline
>stewards, ballet stars and hairdressers would have the same percentage as
>footballers, miners or policemen.

I wouldn't think so...

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Féachadóir wrote:
...
>>> The incidence of being gay will be pretty much be even through
>>> various populations. The ability to live without prejudice when
>>> that is openly stated is the  variable.

>> Populations, possibly, though there will be people who would be
>> potentially gay but who've decided to stay straight, willingly or
>> otherwise. However, within groups within populations I think it's
>> highly unlikely that all occupations have the same incidence. Is it
>> really plausible that airline stewards, ballet stars and
>> hairdressers would have the same percentage as footballers, miners
>> or policemen.

> How about bikers, cops, indian chiefs and construction workers?

I can see how the leather thing would work, also the low slung trousers, but
I just don't get the Indian bit.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

Grosspeckaa wrote:
...
> Album Number: 48
> Mural Number: 1683
> Location: Divis Street, Falls, Belfast
> Type: Nationalist / Republican
> Year: December 2002
> Status: Still exists at location
> Description: "Borrokuruko dei eginuz irrintzi but dubil. Tiochfaidh ár
> lá. ETA bietan jarrai". ETA mural showing a masked ETA volunteer and
> the ETA symbol against a swirling blue background. See No.1637 Album
> 47.

> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no1683.htm#photo

Translation "It's very badly written but it sort of means that there is a
call (irrintxi- a sort of mountain woman blood curdling yodel) to the fight
or struggle (borroka). the second bit is what ETA put on their anagrams.
bietan jarrai is the two ways ie political and shooting people"

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:11:55 -0700, freeireland 
wrote:

>On 17 Oct, 11:47, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>
>> [...]> Irish nationalists so why not give them the right to use their native
>> > language!
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Fine. You pay for it.
>>
>> http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/minister_s_statement.pdf
>>
>> I'll help out with the big words if you like.

Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
to English that costs the money.

>Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
>whatever else I don't want!

And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
too late?

Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?

Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
marching season. Like in the 19th Century.

David H

-- 
abend

On 18 Oct, 21:23, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:11:55 -0700, freeireland 
> wrote:
>
> >On 17 Oct, 11:47, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
>
> >> [...]> Irish nationalists so why not give them the right to use their native
> >> > language!
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> Fine. You pay for it.
>
> >>http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/minister_s_statement.pdf
>
> >> I'll help out with the big words if you like.
>
> Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
> to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
> to English that costs the money.

Why shouldn't that be the case after all we pay people to translate to
polish and all other kinds of languages. Again its still much cheaper
than policing and and economic cost of marching season. Irish language
speakers pay taxes just as much as anyone else and have every right to
use Irish.

>
> >Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
> >whatever else I don't want!
>
> And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
> too late?

I pay for my own pension and realise what a state pension is already
worth. Maybe we should ban marching instead of the Irish language act
after all the savings on policing over 3000 marches a year would be
sustancial.

>
> Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?

I already pay for a usless NHS thats why I pay for private health
insurance.

>
> Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
> marching season. Like in the 19th Century.

No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.

>
> David H
>
> --
> abend

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:13:26 +0100, "Westprog" 
wrote:

>Grosspeckaa wrote:
>...
>> Album Number: 48
>> Mural Number: 1683
>> Location: Divis Street, Falls, Belfast
>> Type: Nationalist / Republican
>> Year: December 2002
>> Status: Still exists at location
>> Description: "Borrokuruko dei eginuz irrintzi but dubil. Tiochfaidh ár
>> lá. ETA bietan jarrai". ETA mural showing a masked ETA volunteer and
>> the ETA symbol against a swirling blue background. See No.1637 Album
>> 47.
>
>> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no1683.htm#photo
>
>Translation "It's very badly written but it sort of means that there is a
>call (irrintxi- a sort of mountain woman blood curdling yodel) to the fight
>or struggle (borroka). the second bit is what ETA put on their anagrams.
>bietan jarrai is the two ways ie political and shooting people"

The British move into Iraq was both political, because, primarily the
political influence of Bush and it is also 'shooting people'.

Though, in fairness, I suspect that the British are better at keeping
'collateral damage' limited than the US. Disclaimer: Obviously,
accurate figures that would establish the truth of that comment are
difficult to recognise amongst all the distorted propaganda...

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:56:50 -0700, freeireland 
wrote:

>On 18 Oct, 21:23, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:

>> Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
>> to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
>> to English that costs the money.
>
>Why shouldn't that be the case after all we pay people to translate to
>polish and all other kinds of languages.

Yes, but that is because it is a job that needs to be done. Here's
the difference: We could hire an interpreter to translate your words
from Irish to English, but you could just as easily tell us yourself.
And we could hire someone to translate council leaflets into Irish.
But they would be read (perhaps), by people who could as easily read
the leaflets in English.

That doesn't apply to the Poles, Portugese, Latvians, etc.

> Again its still much cheaper
>than policing and and economic cost of marching season. Irish language
>speakers pay taxes just as much as anyone else and have every right to
>use Irish.

Feel free. There is no restriction on you using Irish.

>> >Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
>> >whatever else I don't want!

>> And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
>> too late?

>I pay for my own pension and realise what a state pension is already
>worth.

Likewise. The state pension is a safety net for people who can't
or won't make their own arrangements. Yet we each pay towards it,
without too much resentment, because it meets a real need for other
people.

>Maybe we should ban marching instead of the Irish language act
>after all the savings on policing over 3000 marches a year would be
>sustancial.

Or you could ban drinking. Think of the savings.

>> Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?
>
>I already pay for a usless NHS thats why I pay for private health
>insurance.

Same as the pension then (though I don't have a lot of health
insurance). The NHS meets a real need, and it's a safety net.

>> Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
>> marching season. Like in the 19th Century.

>No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
>closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
>impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
>pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
>the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.

A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
banning something has zero cost...

Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
Down can spend the money on something else.

David H
-- 
abend

David H wrote:

> 
> 
>>>Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
>>>marching season. Like in the 19th Century.


In the 19th century they deployed cannon against the Organge Order (& 
Brunswick Clubs). no doubt 2 pounder relics, but cannon nonetheless.


> 
> 
>>No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
>>closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
>>impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
>>pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
>>the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.
> 
> 
> A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
> rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
> of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
> banning something has zero cost...

I think that has been tried.

Banning protests gave the IRA everything they needed at times to argue 
they were just civil rights folks with pea-shooters etc.

> 
> Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
> how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
> demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
> can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
> Down can spend the money on something else.
> 
> David H


The Irish language was hijacked, & it will stay hijacked.

I would sooner seen McGimpsey buy some up-market wheelchairs for 
disabled kids ( & adults) than spend it on Irish translations.

SF has me peeved because they use perfectly legitimate issues to 
benchmark psychic revenge.

I was of course at Garvaghy, Holy Cross  etc. nobody can accuse me of 
not weighing in on the side of my tribe.

However, the truth is as it is.

G.

On 21 Oct, 00:45, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:56:50 -0700, freeireland 
> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Oct, 21:23, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
> >> Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
> >> to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
> >> to English that costs the money.
>
> >Why shouldn't that be the case after all we pay people to translate to
> >polish and all other kinds of languages.
>
> Yes, but that is because it is a job that needs to be done. Here's
> the difference: We could hire an interpreter to translate your words
> from Irish to English, but you could just as easily tell us yourself.
> And we could hire someone to translate council leaflets into Irish.
> But they would be read (perhaps), by people who could as easily read
> the leaflets in English.
>
> That doesn't apply to the Poles, Portugese, Latvians, etc.

There are enough Irish people in Ireland who want there application
forms in Irish and as tax payers they have that right.

>
> > Again its still much cheaper
> >than policing and and economic cost of marching season. Irish language
> >speakers pay taxes just as much as anyone else and have every right to
> >use Irish.
>
> Feel free. There is no restriction on you using Irish.

Yes there is when I want to fill in my rates rebate form.
>
> >> >Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
> >> >whatever else I don't want!
> >> And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
> >> too late?
> >I pay for my own pension and realise what a state pension is already
> >worth.
>
> Likewise. The state pension is a safety net for people who can't
> or won't make their own arrangements. Yet we each pay towards it,
> without too much resentment, because it meets a real need for other
> people.
>
> >Maybe we should ban marching instead of the Irish language act
> >after all the savings on policing over 3000 marches a year would be
> >sustancial.
>
> Or you could ban drinking. Think of the savings.

Really though does drinking not bring in more money in tax than its
costs, just like
smoking.

>
> >> Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?
>
> >I already pay for a usless NHS thats why I pay for private health
> >insurance.
>
> Same as the pension then (though I don't have a lot of health
> insurance). The NHS meets a real need, and it's a safety net.
>
> >> Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
> >> marching season. Like in the 19th Century.
> >No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
> >closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
> >impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
> >pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
> >the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.
>
> A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
> rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
> of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
> banning something has zero cost...

There would be no protest if there was no march. Very few of the over
3000 marches annually have protests yet all require a police presense.
Protests are not the problem the orange order is, officials within the
orange order to this day refuse to take responsibility of parades by
refusing to put their names on applications.

>
> Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
> how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
> demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
> can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
> Down can spend the money on something else.

Sorry that doesn't work we know how unionist councils in the likes of
Lisburn etc work.  Also if that was the case half the orange order
parades would be banned.  Just how about the Orange order pay for its
own events instead of the tax payer. You cannot argue that Irish
language should not be funded on the basis of cost when the sectarian
Orange Order has marches at much greater expense to the tax payer not
just on policing but on cleanup etc.

>
> David H
> --
> abend

freeireland wrote:
> On 21 Oct, 00:45, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:56:50 -0700, freeireland 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 18 Oct, 21:23, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
>>>>to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
>>>>to English that costs the money.
>>
>>>Why shouldn't that be the case after all we pay people to translate to
>>>polish and all other kinds of languages.
>>
>>Yes, but that is because it is a job that needs to be done. Here's
>>the difference: We could hire an interpreter to translate your words
>>from Irish to English, but you could just as easily tell us yourself.
>>And we could hire someone to translate council leaflets into Irish.
>>But they would be read (perhaps), by people who could as easily read
>>the leaflets in English.
>>
>>That doesn't apply to the Poles, Portugese, Latvians, etc.
> 
> 
> There are enough Irish people in Ireland who want there application
> forms in Irish and as tax payers they have that right.
> 
> 
>>>Again its still much cheaper
>>>than policing and and economic cost of marching season. Irish language
>>>speakers pay taxes just as much as anyone else and have every right to
>>>use Irish.
>>
>>Feel free. There is no restriction on you using Irish.
> 
> 
> Yes there is when I want to fill in my rates rebate form.
> 
>>>>>Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
>>>>>whatever else I don't want!
>>>>
>>>>And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
>>>>too late?
>>>
>>>I pay for my own pension and realise what a state pension is already
>>>worth.
>>
>>Likewise. The state pension is a safety net for people who can't
>>or won't make their own arrangements. Yet we each pay towards it,
>>without too much resentment, because it meets a real need for other
>>people.
>>
>>
>>>Maybe we should ban marching instead of the Irish language act
>>>after all the savings on policing over 3000 marches a year would be
>>>sustancial.
>>
>>Or you could ban drinking. Think of the savings.
> 
> 
> Really though does drinking not bring in more money in tax than its
> costs, just like
> smoking.
> 
> 
>>>>Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?
>>
>>>I already pay for a usless NHS thats why I pay for private health
>>>insurance.
>>
>>Same as the pension then (though I don't have a lot of health
>>insurance). The NHS meets a real need, and it's a safety net.
>>
>>
>>>>Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
>>>>marching season. Like in the 19th Century.
>>>
>>>No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
>>>closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
>>>impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
>>>pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
>>>the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.
>>
>>A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
>>rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
>>of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
>>banning something has zero cost...
> 
> 
> There would be no protest if there was no march. Very few of the over
> 3000 marches annually have protests yet all require a police presense.
> Protests are not the problem the orange order is, officials within the
> orange order to this day refuse to take responsibility of parades by
> refusing to put their names on applications.
> 
> 
>>Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
>>how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
>>demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
>>can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
>>Down can spend the money on something else.
> 
> 
> Sorry that doesn't work we know how unionist councils in the likes of
> Lisburn etc work.  Also if that was the case half the orange order
> parades would be banned.  Just how about the Orange order pay for its
> own events instead of the tax payer. You cannot argue that Irish
> language should not be funded on the basis of cost when the sectarian
> Orange Order has marches at much greater expense to the tax payer not
> just on policing but on cleanup etc.


Gender free toilets to keep SF happy cost a few bob as well. Where did 
it get us? Answer, lots of paedophiles at leisure centres etc.

On 21 Oct, 22:23, Gregory  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 21 Oct, 00:45, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:56:50 -0700, freeireland 
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On 18 Oct, 21:23, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
>
> >>>>Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
> >>>>to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
> >>>>to English that costs the money.
>
> >>>Why shouldn't that be the case after all we pay people to translate to
> >>>polish and all other kinds of languages.
>
> >>Yes, but that is because it is a job that needs to be done. Here's
> >>the difference: We could hire an interpreter to translate your words
> >>from Irish to English, but you could just as easily tell us yourself.
> >>And we could hire someone to translate council leaflets into Irish.
> >>But they would be read (perhaps), by people who could as easily read
> >>the leaflets in English.
>
> >>That doesn't apply to the Poles, Portugese, Latvians, etc.
>
> > There are enough Irish people in Ireland who want there application
> > forms in Irish and as tax payers they have that right.
>
> >>>Again its still much cheaper
> >>>than policing and and economic cost of marching season. Irish language
> >>>speakers pay taxes just as much as anyone else and have every right to
> >>>use Irish.
>
> >>Feel free. There is no restriction on you using Irish.
>
> > Yes there is when I want to fill in my rates rebate form.
>
> >>>>>Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
> >>>>>whatever else I don't want!
>
> >>>>And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
> >>>>too late?
>
> >>>I pay for my own pension and realise what a state pension is already
> >>>worth.
>
> >>Likewise. The state pension is a safety net for people who can't
> >>or won't make their own arrangements. Yet we each pay towards it,
> >>without too much resentment, because it meets a real need for other
> >>people.
>
> >>>Maybe we should ban marching instead of the Irish language act
> >>>after all the savings on policing over 3000 marches a year would be
> >>>sustancial.
>
> >>Or you could ban drinking. Think of the savings.
>
> > Really though does drinking not bring in more money in tax than its
> > costs, just like
> > smoking.
>
> >>>>Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?
>
> >>>I already pay for a usless NHS thats why I pay for private health
> >>>insurance.
>
> >>Same as the pension then (though I don't have a lot of health
> >>insurance). The NHS meets a real need, and it's a safety net.
>
> >>>>Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
> >>>>marching season. Like in the 19th Century.
>
> >>>No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
> >>>closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
> >>>impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
> >>>pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
> >>>the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.
>
> >>A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
> >>rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
> >>of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
> >>banning something has zero cost...
>
> > There would be no protest if there was no march. Very few of the over
> > 3000 marches annually have protests yet all require a police presense.
> > Protests are not the problem the orange order is, officials within the
> > orange order to this day refuse to take responsibility of parades by
> > refusing to put their names on applications.
>
> >>Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
> >>how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
> >>demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
> >>can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
> >>Down can spend the money on something else.
>
> > Sorry that doesn't work we know how unionist councils in the likes of
> > Lisburn etc work.  Also if that was the case half the orange order
> > parades would be banned.  Just how about the Orange order pay for its
> > own events instead of the tax payer. You cannot argue that Irish
> > language should not be funded on the basis of cost when the sectarian
> > Orange Order has marches at much greater expense to the tax payer not
> > just on policing but on cleanup etc.
>
> Gender free toilets to keep SF happy cost a few bob as well. Where did
> it get us? Answer, lots of paedophiles at leisure centres etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Irish is not an only Sinn Fein motion I am afraid SDLP have also been
pushing this.

freeireland wrote:
> On 21 Oct, 22:23, Gregory  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Oct, 00:45, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:56:50 -0700, freeireland 
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>On 18 Oct, 21:23, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Using the language is free, of course. It's getting the state
>>>>>>to pay a pal of yours to translate your demands from Irish
>>>>>>to English that costs the money.
>>
>>>>>Why shouldn't that be the case after all we pay people to translate to
>>>>>polish and all other kinds of languages.
>>
>>>>Yes, but that is because it is a job that needs to be done. Here's
>>>>the difference: We could hire an interpreter to translate your words
>>>
>>>>from Irish to English, but you could just as easily tell us yourself.
>>>
>>>>And we could hire someone to translate council leaflets into Irish.
>>>>But they would be read (perhaps), by people who could as easily read
>>>>the leaflets in English.
>>
>>>>That doesn't apply to the Poles, Portugese, Latvians, etc.
>>
>>>There are enough Irish people in Ireland who want there application
>>>forms in Irish and as tax payers they have that right.
>>
>>>>>Again its still much cheaper
>>>>>than policing and and economic cost of marching season. Irish language
>>>>>speakers pay taxes just as much as anyone else and have every right to
>>>>>use Irish.
>>
>>>>Feel free. There is no restriction on you using Irish.
>>
>>>Yes there is when I want to fill in my rates rebate form.
>>
>>>>>>>Ok then you can pay for Iraq/Afghanistan and marchinging season. Plus
>>>>>>>whatever else I don't want!
>>
>>>>>>And do you want to pay towards a state pension, or wait until it is
>>>>>>too late?
>>
>>>>>I pay for my own pension and realise what a state pension is already
>>>>>worth.
>>
>>>>Likewise. The state pension is a safety net for people who can't
>>>>or won't make their own arrangements. Yet we each pay towards it,
>>>>without too much resentment, because it meets a real need for other
>>>>people.
>>
>>>>>Maybe we should ban marching instead of the Irish language act
>>>>>after all the savings on policing over 3000 marches a year would be
>>>>>sustancial.
>>
>>>>Or you could ban drinking. Think of the savings.
>>
>>>Really though does drinking not bring in more money in tax than its
>>>costs, just like
>>>smoking.
>>
>>>>>>Feeling too healthy to pay towards the NHS?
>>
>>>>>I already pay for a usless NHS thats why I pay for private health
>>>>>insurance.
>>
>>>>Same as the pension then (though I don't have a lot of health
>>>>insurance). The NHS meets a real need, and it's a safety net.
>>
>>>>>>Or you could always save the money by *not* policing the
>>>>>>marching season. Like in the 19th Century.
>>
>>>>>No it should be banned completely. Marching hits the economy by
>>>>>closing town centers during busy periods. That also has high economic
>>>>>impact. If the orange order want to march thats fine, then let them
>>>>>pay for it. The money Irish nationalists save on taxes will pay for
>>>>>the Irish language act and havea few bob left over.
>>
>>>>A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
>>>>rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
>>>>of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
>>>>banning something has zero cost...
>>
>>>There would be no protest if there was no march. Very few of the over
>>>3000 marches annually have protests yet all require a police presense.
>>>Protests are not the problem the orange order is, officials within the
>>>orange order to this day refuse to take responsibility of parades by
>>>refusing to put their names on applications.
>>
>>>>Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
>>>>how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
>>>>demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
>>>>can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
>>>>Down can spend the money on something else.
>>
>>>Sorry that doesn't work we know how unionist councils in the likes of
>>>Lisburn etc work.  Also if that was the case half the orange order
>>>parades would be banned.  Just how about the Orange order pay for its
>>>own events instead of the tax payer. You cannot argue that Irish
>>>language should not be funded on the basis of cost when the sectarian
>>>Orange Order has marches at much greater expense to the tax payer not
>>>just on policing but on cleanup etc.
>>
>>Gender free toilets to keep SF happy cost a few bob as well. Where did
>>it get us? Answer, lots of paedophiles at leisure centres etc.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> Irish is not an only Sinn Fein motion I am afraid SDLP have also been
> pushing this.
> 


I think the SDLP will want the executive minutes done in something other 
than the SF dialect in future.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:38:35 -0700, freeireland 
wrote:

>On 21 Oct, 00:45, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:

>> A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
>> rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
>> of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
>> banning something has zero cost...
>
>There would be no protest if there was no march.

Same with the civil rights marches, of course.

>Very few of the over
>3000 marches annually have protests yet all require a police presense.

http://www.equality.nisra.gov.uk/archive/Tables/PSNI/Crime%20Statistics%20Yearly%20Update/Parades.xls
2480 loyalist parades
174 nationalist parades
591 'other'

Do you only want to fine the loyalist parades, or all of them?

>Protests are not the problem the orange order is, officials within the
>orange order to this day refuse to take responsibility of parades by
>refusing to put their names on applications.

Same with the civil rights marches, of course. The problem is
that you think that the marches are wrong in themselves, so
you are all for financial sanctions. If you were the least bit
sympathetic, you might see marching as a valuable freedom,
not an act subject to being fined - though perfectly legal.

I think your final complaint is out of date - it was an issue for
some marches some years ago, but I don't think an application
will be accepted these days without contact details:
http://www.paradescommission.org/publications/PDF/PC%2011-1%20Notification%20Form.pdf


>> Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
>> how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
>> demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
>> can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
>> Down can spend the money on something else.
>
>Sorry that doesn't work we know how unionist councils in the likes of
>Lisburn etc work.  

If the voters want Irish leaflets, the voters get Irish leaflets. If
the voters don't want Irish leaflets, why should they pay?
Devolving the matter to local councils puts the decision
closer to the voters' hearts, and pockets.

David H

-- 
abend

David H wrote:

> 
> If the voters want Irish leaflets, the voters get Irish leaflets. If
> the voters don't want Irish leaflets, why should they pay?
> Devolving the matter to local councils puts the decision
> closer to the voters' hearts, and pockets.
> 
> David H
> 




Leaflets are a politicians way of telling you that he wants you to vote 
for him rather than the people on the other people's leaflets.

In fact sometimes he delivers further leaflets (often in black & white) 
to tell people not to vote for people on the same leaflet as him that he 
put through the door a few days earlier.

By that stage the individual candidate lamp-post posters are often on 
the ground.

Often, it has been said, SDLP canvassers will accidently meet each other 
and instantly begin fighting over a street.

G.

On 22 Oct, 22:08, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:38:35 -0700, freeireland 
> wrote:
>
> >On 21 Oct, 00:45, swel...@btinternet.com (David H) wrote:
> >> A part of the policing cost is to police the protests,
> >> rather than the marches. Hmm, you could save a chunk
> >> of the money just by banning the protests. After all, you think
> >> banning something has zero cost...
>
> >There would be no protest if there was no march.
>
> Same with the civil rights marches, of course.

Can you tell me when the last NICRA march was?

>
> >Very few of the over
> >3000 marches annually have protests yet all require a police presense.
>
> http://www.equality.nisra.gov.uk/archive/Tables/PSNI/Crime%20Statisti...
> 2480 loyalist parades
> 174 nationalist parades
> 591 'other'
>
> Do you only want to fine the loyalist parades, or all of them?

All parades and I never said fine. I believe all parades unless
representative of the full community should have no impact on public
money and should not block up towns. Any parade through an area or
built up town must have full public support from the public in that
area no matter what grouping.

>
> >Protests are not the problem the orange order is, officials within the
> >orange order to this day refuse to take responsibility of parades by
> >refusing to put their names on applications.
>
> Same with the civil rights marches, of course. The problem is
> that you think that the marches are wrong in themselves, so
> you are all for financial sanctions. If you were the least bit
> sympathetic, you might see marching as a valuable freedom,
> not an act subject to being fined - though perfectly legal.

Again I have not said all marches are wrong, I just don't want to pay
for marches for an organisation which in its rules excludes me. Again
they should have no impact on the public purse in anyway including
blocking up a town centre.

Secondly marching is not a simple freedom and is much more complex
than that. I for example cannot just decide to march up the M1.

>
> I think your final complaint is out of date - it was an issue for
> some marches some years ago, but I don't think an application
> will be accepted these days without contact details:http://www.paradescommission.org/publications/PDF/PC%2011-1%20Notific...
>

Sorry this is still a pretty raw issue for nationalists who have this
blatent sectarianism pushed in their faces every year.

> >> Or here's a practical suggestion. Each council decides for itself
> >> how to spend its money. In council areas where there is a real
> >> demand from the electorate, Irish language leaflets and services
> >> can be provided by the council, and paid for from the rates. North
> >> Down can spend the money on something else.
>
> >Sorry that doesn't work we know how unionist councils in the likes of
> >Lisburn etc work.
>
> If the voters want Irish leaflets, the voters get Irish leaflets. If
> the voters don't want Irish leaflets, why should they pay?
> Devolving the matter to local councils puts the decision
> closer to the voters' hearts, and pockets.

Sorry again unionist councils cannot be trusted to do this. They do
have a track record you know.

Though again this is my exact point why should I pay for parades if I
don't want them. Are you going to apply this rule to parades noting
that it would mean very few parades west of the Bann.

>
> David H
>
> --
> abend

freeireland wrote:

>>
>>If the voters want Irish leaflets, the voters get Irish leaflets. If
>>the voters don't want Irish leaflets, why should they pay?
>>Devolving the matter to local councils puts the decision
>>closer to the voters' hearts, and pockets.
> 
> 
> Sorry again unionist councils cannot be trusted to do this. They do
> have a track record you know.
> 
> Though again this is my exact point why should I pay for parades if I
> don't want them. 


I think Catriona Ruane, (when the time comes), will say because they are 
gay, bare-assed republicans and directed towards attacking the Catholic 
Church, faith, family and anti-prostitution morality.

Given a choice between the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and the 
Orange Order, I will take my chances with the latter. The Orange Order 
would allow us to keep more of our culture than Ms Ruane.

G.


LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - This week, in what appears to be a 
growing trend of hostility toward the Catholic Church, a U.N. Official 
blamed the Catholic Church for the spread of Aids because of its 
unwavering opposition to contraception and promotion of abstinence until 
Marriage.

Earlier this month, on October 7, 2007 two male members of the “Sisters 
of Perpetual Indulgence” attended a Catholic Mass and came forward to 
receive the Holy Eucharist dressed in “drag”. In fact they were dressed 
in attire that mockingly resembled the religious habit of consecrated 
Catholic women religious. The group on its own web site boasts of itself 
as “… a leading